Tuesday, May 10, 2016

When it comes to movies featuring the Avengers, I’m
definitely in the minority. My emotional response has wavered only between mild
disinterest to outright boredom—especially when it comes to anything related to
Thor and/or The Hulk. Similarly, Captain
America: The First Avenger left me completely underwhelmed. I loved the
character of Cap himself—how could I not?—but found his origin story
uninteresting.

That all changed when I saw Captain America: Winter Soldier.
With tense action sequences, a healthy dose of espionage, a palpable sense of
danger, a deliciously entertaining supervillain, and deft handling of
moral/political themes, Winter Soldier rocked my socks off. My wife and I
wanted to watch the film again even before it had finished.

The announcement of Civil War thrilled me with the
possibility of watching another Cap-centric Avengers film. At the same time, I
knew the bar had been set quite high. Could Cap (the superhero) entertain Cap
(the moviegoer) as much as he did the last time around? That’s the question I’m
here to answer today.

As a reminder, I rate movies based on three criteria: potentially objectionable content (C), artistry
(A), and my personal opinions (P).

CONTENT (C): 7 out of 10

Of the recent Avengers movies, Cap’s films tend to be cleaner
in the areas of sexual innuendo and profanity. True to form, Civil War steers clear of the pointless innuendo
that tarnished the last Avengers ensemble (i.e., Age of Ultron). The profanity is about what we’ve come to expect
from a Marvel movie.

With all the action set pieces, there is a heavy amount of
violence—including one scene late in the game that ended up being more
disturbing than I’d have anticipated. Then again, maybe it was just me.
Whatever the case, the movie definitely isn’t for younger audiences.

ARTISTRY (A): 8 out of 10

After watching the trailers, I was concerned about character
motivations: would Steve “All About Authority” Rogers fighting against his
chain of command and Tony “Do Whatever I Want” Stark fighting for greater
government oversight work? Thankfully, it did. In fact, the filmmakers
respected audiences enough to give plausible reasons for both superheroes’
positions. We genuinely empathize with both Steve and Tony, as they each have
solid rhetorical points to make.

With superheroes numbering in the double digits, Civil War handles all the characters,
and the introduction of a few new ones, adeptly. I can understand how some
people might complain about the new heroes having little setup involved in their
introductions. At the same time, Marvel has spent years setting up the main
Avengers, and if they had standalone films for every single Avenger before
moving forward, we’d all probably be complaining about how the studio was taking
forever to get things going. Besides, more standalone films are on their way,
which will give even more depth to characters about which we don’t know a lot
(yet).

Probably the film’s biggest weakness is related to the movie’s
villain. While his motives (once we learn what they are) are perfectly understandable,
his methods are questionable. They remind me somewhat of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and the needlessly elaborate
gymnastics [*SPOILER ALERT*] involving the antagonist’s desire to get Harry to
touch a portkey. In Civil War, too
many elements need to fall into place in order for the villain’s plans to
succeed. By the end of the film, the suspension of disbelief has stretched too
thin to hold incredulity at bay.

PREFERENCE (P): 9 out of 10

The suspension of disbelief mentioned above isn’t enough to
ruin the movie for me, but it does weaken the impact of the ending. I have
trouble feeling the supposed gravity of the situation after learning just
exactly how the villain expected to pull off his grand scheme.

Even so, I still find Civil
War to be like Winter Soldier in
that it is a genuine thrill ride. The character interactions, moral dilemmas,
and numerous action set pieces—not the least of which is the battle for which
the movie gets its name—all combine into a flat-out entertaining experience.

Captain America’s films handle their political themes well.
I especially appreciated one character’s exhortation
about how sometimes you need to do what’s right even when the entire world (or
so it seems) is telling you you’re wrong. The religious symbolism accompanying
the scene is genuinely appreciated.

It also doesn’t hurt that my least two favorite Avengers are
MIA in this film. Yes, I’m talking about Thor “The Mighty Bore” and Bruce “What
the Heck is My Motivation” Banner. I’m sorry, but I feel nothing for these
characters, and their exclusion in Civil
War works strongly in the story’s favor.

One thing all the Avengers movies do is blend gravitas and
humor exceptionally well, and this is no exception. We’ve grown with these
characters over the years, so it feels like watching friends laugh and fight
together. The same goes for the new recruits as well—especially Spider-Man.
Even though we’ve seen the web-slinger in two separate franchises in the last
several years, it is this Spiderman who takes the cake (and I mean that in a
good way). Simply put, I loved the experience of watching these friends, new
and old, duke it out on the big screen.

Monday, March 28, 2016

If you’re a fan of the 2014 film God’s Not Dead, and if you’re excited
about its upcoming sequel, you and I probably have several things in common. We
likely agree that historic Christianity is becoming less and acceptable in the
public sphere. We likely agree that many of our nation’s college campuses are
becoming more and more hostile to individuals who adhere to any form of
absolutes. We also likely agree that there is an increasing need for believers
of all types—students, teachers, pastors, filmmakers, etc.—to engage with our world
in an effective and countercultural way.

It’s actually because of these
shared beliefs that I’m majorly concerned with the popularity of God’s Not Dead (and other movies like
it). And it’s because of these shared beliefs that I want to explain my concerns to you.

I’ll put aside most of the
artistic issues I have with the film. (For that, I’ll direct you to my cyber
friends Steven D. Greydanus and Peter T. Chattaway). My main focus here will be on the movie’s message. In short,
the film utilizes three dangerous techniques to craft its story: caricatures,
wish fulfillment, and deception.

1. Caricatures

Don’t you hate how Christians are
repeatedly misrepresented in movies and television? It’s as if screenwriters
take no thought to learn what true Christians are actually like. We end up with
a lot of hypocritical, narrow-minded, and/or worldly characters who don’t
rightly represent the vast majority of genuine believers. It’s highly
unfortunate at best, and outright shameful at worst.

This misrepresentation is exactly
what God’s Not Dead does to all three
of the main atheists (or antitheists) in the film. All of them are evil or
absurd in the extreme: no redeeming qualities, no shades of gray. Each of them
is one-dimensional, robbing them of any real humanity.

In the end
the central injustice of this movie is its failure to fairly represent a class
of people whom Christians purport to love. But
it’s not loving people well to misrepresent them this badly. This movie
caricatures, dehumanizes, and depersonalizes people like me, portraying us in
the worst possible light. How could I
not find this movie disgustingly offensive?

Carter is right. You don’t
caricature, insult, and demean skeptics and unbelievers if you want them to
actually engage with you in a meaningful conversation. You can’t practice
deception and then expect people to trust you, let alone hear you. It’s
Evangelism 101.

2. Wish Fulfillment

Like many Christian films, God’s Not Dead takes places in an
alternate reality, where circumstances unfold unnaturally or illogically so as
to work toward a contrived outcome. The suspension of disbelief is heightened
to nearly insufferable levels.

Consider just a couple examples.
First, the film gives us a view of persecution so watered down that it’s practically
meaningless. In an early scene, the movie sets the stage for its main
protagonist, college student Josh Wheaton; he is told what his experience will
be like in the philosophy class he signed up for: “Think Roman Colosseum—lions, people cheering for your death.” That’s the kind of persecution young
Josh has in store for him, according to the movie. (I guess it’s possible to
interpret that line of dialogue as hyperbole, or even as a stab at humor, but
nothing about the film lends itself to such an interpretation.)

What does Josh’s experience
actually entail? His atheist professor ends up giving Josh three 20-minute
segments in three separate classes to explain his faith to the entire class.
And other than one girl asking Josh a question during his first presentation,
there’s never even a hint of mob mentality persecution.

This is in stark contrast to what
Christians actually experienced in the Roman Colosseum. Violent deaths aren’t
usually inspiring, and yet historical accounts of Christian martyrdom fill us
with a strong sense of catharsis. Why? Because martyrs show us most clearly how
a person can lose the whole world and gain his soul. All his losses are
temporary and all his gains are eternal.

In spite of what the movie foreshadows,
Josh’s victory over his college professor isn’t anything remotely like that. He
ends up losing nothing and gaining everything—including the accolades of pop
culture icons in front of a massive crowd. (Technically Josh does lose his
girlfriend, but it’s obvious almost from the beginning that he was better off
without her anyway.)

One more example of wish
fulfillment: Josh’s victory is based on a string of unrealistic circumstances. He
is somehow able to prepare three apologetic presentations, complete with
Hollywood-level visual aids, in a matter of a few days. Each presentation leads
to a completely unreasonable response from his professor: dastardly threats
after the first presentation (even though the professor wasn’t seriously
challenged at all), a vulnerable confession after the second presentation (after
Josh did directly challenge the
professor’s authority), and a complete meltdown during the third presentation
(which, with its infantile rhetoric, wouldn’t goad anyone).

As a result, every student in the
entire class—each of which agreed just a few days before that God is dead—demonstrably
joins Josh’s side and declares that God is not
dead. To top it all off, this little squabble somehow makes it into the news,
which quickly reaches the ears of the folks at Duck Dynasty, who mysteriously
collaborate with the Newsboys to interrupt their concert that weekend to give a
shout out to brave young Josh.

These contrived plot elements are
nothing more than fantasy masquerading as reality. That’s not inspiring;
it’s stoking up the fires of paranoia and victimization.

3. Deception

This isn’t so much a third factor
of the movie’s message as it is a result of the first two factors. The film dishonestly
handles almost every thematic element it touches: human nature, logic, philosophy,
character development, etc. We’re not just talking about being sloppy. We’re
talking about lying. In a court of law, it’s called perjury. Does anyone see a
problem with Christians—supposed proponents of truth—resorting to lying as a
rhetorical device?

Even as the end credits roll,
several real-life court cases are highlighted as the supposed inspiration for
the movie. YouTuber Kevin McCreary (a.k.a., Nostalgia Christian) actually
researched every single one of these cases (which he begins discussing at the 32:40 mark). Here’s
what he discovered:

…most of [the
court cases] don’t have anything to do with religion, but rather political
issues that tend to be more conservative. And without exception, they’re cases
of Christians filing lawsuits against schools. . . . Not a single one of them
are cut-and-dried cases of Christians being mistreated, and they all result in
the Alliance Defending Freedom [an organization that gets an ad at the end of
the credits] making a lot of money.

In spite of all this, some might
argue that believers have found genuine encouragement from movies like God’s Not Dead, or that some people may
have actually gotten saved as a result of watching these films. While those are
real possibilities, it’s still no excuse for dishonesty in our discourse. God
forbid that professing Christians play fast and loose with the truth because
“the end justifies the means.” As Andrew Barber says in his excellent examination of Christian films, “The idea that one conversion validates
even the worst means can be used to justify all sorts of evils.”

God’s NOT Dead…But So What?

It’s theoretically possible, I
suppose, that God’s Not Dead 2 will
be an improvement on its predecessor. However, the filmmakers have shown no
remorse over how they handled things the first time around. In fact, it seems
clear that they’re copying everything about the original film that made it a
financial success. Heck, even God’s Not
Dead 2’s release date is problematic: April 1 (what many Evangelicals like
to self-congratulatingly call National Atheist Day). Seriously? Are they being unnecessarily
offensive just so they can get another one of their fingers in the eyes of their
atheist neighbors? God’s Not Dead 2
is looking like it has all the subtlety, grace, nuance, and Christian spirit of
the first film—that is to say, none.

Brothers and sisters in the faith,
if we continue to push artistic and moral trash like God’s Not Dead on the world, we will only continue to sour the
taste of Christianity in the mouths of those in our culture. By playing in a
fantasy world of our own making while simultaneously vilifying those who
disagree with us, we will fail to engage with our culture in any meaningful
way. In fact, we will actually damage the very gospel message we seek to
proclaim.

When we play dirty like the
filmmakers of God’s Not Dead have
done (and are still doing?), we show ourselves to be so desperate to spread our
message that we will stoop to any level in order to get our society to hear us.
In effect, we act as if…well, as if God is functionally dead. As if it’s solely
up to us to make a difference in the world. We tarnish the best news in the
universe, all for the sake of our own therapeutic hubris. And that is something
for which we should be greatly ashamed.

Monday, February 22, 2016

They could have called it God’s Not Dead. But then it would have been cheesy, corny, and
other food-related adjectives. Risen
is devoid of most cheese and corn: no caricatures, no wish-fulfillment
fantasies, and no deceptive ethos-building. It’s not a perfect film, but it is
a welcome addition to the faith-based genre.

As a reminder, I rate movies based on three criteria: potentially objectionable content (C),
artistry (A), and my personal preference (P).

CONTENT (C): 10 out of 10

Believe it or not, faith-based films often have questionable
content—not the typical sex, violence, and profanity, but something just as
problematic. What they often do is jettison artistic nuance and subtlety and instead
beat audiences over the head with a blatant message that, true or not,
alienates skeptics and ends up preaching only to the choir. Such tactics are morally
and artistically deficient.

In the case of Risen,
no such overt message exists. The film is obviously sympathetic to Christianity,
and religious thematic elements abound, but such is the nature of the story
being told. The life, death, and resurrection of Christ are ripe events for
existential exploration, and this movie does an excellent job (for the most
part) of showing and not telling.

There’s even an appropriate amount of ambiguity. The last
line spoken in the movie leaves one character’s spiritual state open to
interpretation. There’s a potent pause in the middle of what he says, and as
grammarians know, how you punctuate a sentence can radically change its
meaning. So is the case here, and it’s a welcome way to end the movie. It
reminds me of the ending to Inception; the audience is given room to contemplate.

It should be noted that there is a fair amount of violence and gore related to battle killings, the crucifixion
of three individuals, and the inspection of a few bloated corpses. This isn’t
anywhere as brutal as The Passion of the
Christ, but it’s still intense.

ARTISTRY (A): 7 out of 10

Unlike your typical faith-based feature, Risen has some serious caliber talent both
behind and in front of the camera, and it shows. The originality of the central
plot—a manhunt for the body of Jesus—puts a fresh and engaging spin on a
familiar tale. Except for a few minor cases (including the first speaking role
in the film, unfortunately), the acting is stellar. An especially artistic
aspect of the movie is its cinematography, which, if my memory serves, only
gets more and more beautiful as the narrative progresses.

Some might say that the opening battle is sub-par, being
that it’s a small scale set piece. But that’s just a Hollywood-conditioned mindset
talking. (It was an automatic emotional response I initially had, in fact, so I’m
pointing the finger at myself first.) The truth is, not every battle in human
history resembled the Orc siege at Helm’s Deep, and that’s perfectly fine.

It could also be argued that the insertion of some material
in the last third or so of the film (scenes taken from the latter part of the
gospels) doesn’t contribute much to the narrative, and could in fact prove
confusing for those not familiar with the gospel story. My wife compared it to
a Marvel superhero movie, in that it includes a lot of references to plot
points and characters that only Christians will catch and/or understand. These
scenes almost make it feel like the movie is meandering without a specific goal
in mind.

At the same time, if we consider that the narrative follows the
character arc of someone whose entire worldview has been challenged to the core,
the meandering nature of the final section of the movie could be thematically
appropriate. A lot of it depends, I guess, on audience expectations.

It’s also nice to see that the followers of Jesus are
living, breathing humans, not overly saintly and unrelatable (unlike, say,
Charlton Heston’s Moses after the burning bush sequence in The Ten Commandments). The forcefulness of Peter’s character, in
one scene especially, is deliciously potent.

PREFERENCE (P): 8 out of 10

It took me a little while to warm up to the movie, but once
the manhunt was underway, my enjoyment level exponentially increased. I
absolutely loved all the details related to the search for Christ’s body: the political
maneuvering, the interrogations, tracking down the disciples, and so on.
Riveting stuff, that. With the addition of a surprising amount of humor, I was
hooked.

A lot of reviewers have complained about how the film shifts
its focus at the midpoint—what students of screenwriting guru Syd Field call
the point of no return. It’s an effectively dramatic scene, and it in no way
lost my interest. I remained engaged as Clavius’ investigation took a more
personal turn, leading him to even aid his former adversaries in a sequence
that I thoroughly enjoyed.

Only when the back-to-back miracles started in the final
fourth of the film did I start to lose interest. It felt disjointed and aimless
(as I already mentioned above). Perhaps a second viewing would prove to be a
more positive and cathartic experience.

Whatever the case, I still appreciated how the screenplay
handled the interactions between key characters. The conversation between a
Roman tribune and Jesus, for example, could have been so cheesy and/or ham-handed,
but it better revealed the true nature and character of God in its quiet
assurance.

I also liked how the film avoided a complete whitewashing of
the cast, giving us (among other things) one of the most authentic looking
Jesus figures thus far in a film. It’s a most welcome change from the Hollywood
casting status quo.

All in all, I’ve turned into something of a fan boy of Risen. I can’t wait to watch it again
and own it on DVD. It may not be the artistic masterpiece that The Passion of the Christ was, but it is
more accessible, more entertaining, and (ultimately) more uplifting.

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

I recently came across a
fascinating study by psychology professor John Hayes at Carnegie Mellon
University. He evaluated pieces of music written from 1685 to 1900 by composers
who are now considered successful. The focus? To answer the question, “How long
after one becomes interested in music is it that one becomes world class?”

Professor Hayes narrowed
the selection down to 500 compositions, written by 76 different composers, all
of which are performed regularly in modern times and are generally considered
to be the cream of the crop. He then created a timeline for each composer’s
career, seeking to determine how long they had been composing music before
writing these masterpieces. Here’s what he discovered:

[V]irtually every single “masterwork” was written after year ten
of the composer’s career. . . . Not a single person produced incredible work
without putting in a decade of practice first. Even a genius like Mozart had to
work for at least ten years before he produced something that became popular.
Professor Hayes began to refer to this period, which was filled with hard work
and little recognition, as the “ten years of silence.”

Even though my blog
turns ten years old this Saturday, I can’t really call this my ten years of
silence according to Hayes’ standards. I haven’t rigorously, or even steadily,
been publishing content during that time. Over the years, I’ve sometimes posted
several times a week, sometimes once a week, and more sporadically during other
periods. Even so, when I wrote my very first blog post, I didn’t have a ten year plan in mind.

Yet I’m still blogging
(at least occasionally), with plans to continue on into the future.

This time last year, I
had planned on continuing my once-a-week posting schedule. But I had no clue
that a career change was right around the corner. I’ve always claimed that I
would never go into business for myself, and if you told me that’s what I’d be doing
in the second half of 2015, I’d have said you were a couple tacos short of a
fiesta platter. But here I am, an independent contractor offering copy writing and content editing services,
as well as identity theft and legal protection services.

And I’m absolutely
loving it. Who would have guessed? Certainly not me.

So Happier Far will likely not be updated on a regular basis for at
least a while longer. (Running your own businesses, while incredibly fun,
happens to suck up most of your time.) The blog’s not dead,
but it may be a while before we get back to a consistent schedule.

Nevertheless, I’m
dedicated to pursuing the craft of writing. If I want to write books in the
future (and I do), I’ll want to maximize my influence by spending more time on
my metaphorical ten years of silence. This blog is a great place to do that.

To all my readers: thank
you for your support, encouragement, and critiques. Thank you for visiting this
site and sharing in the discussion. Thank you for allowing me to be one of the
voices to which you have graciously lent your ears. I don’t ever want to take
that lightly.

Pornography
and Christian films. There’s a connection between the two that most people
miss. And the longer we’re unaware of it, the more we’re hurt by it.

Last
fall, the folks at Covenant Eyes
graciously allowed me to explain this connection on their blog. (I—ahem—forgot
to post a link to it here until now.) Here’s how the article begins:

It has happened too many times to count:
professing Christians have defended the use of porn as a tool for truth and
beauty. That may sound like an absurd statement, but it is not unfounded. In
order to properly illuminate the problem, we need to address something that will
initially seem off topic: the ways Christian film critics respond to
faith-based films. (Please bear with me.)

If you’re embarrassed by heavy-handed
Christian-themed movies, you’re not alone. The subtext of many faith-based
films—poor acting, a mediocre script, perfunctory production values, and the
like—indicates that Christians value substance (right thinking) over style
(good aesthetics). This may be subversive to the filmmakers’ intent, but the
message is still there.

Film critic Jeffrey Overstreet succinctly
explains it this way: “Style is substance….If
you change the style of something, you change what it can mean.”

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

For the purposes of this blog post, let’s forget the unborn.
I won’t ask you to change your views on abortion. In fact, we’ll put that issue
completely aside.

The reason I’m willing to do that is because we have more
common ground than might be readily apparent. Our divergent paths cross at
least on one point: the sexual abuse of minors. Pro-life and pro-choice
advocates can agree that it is a despicable evil for anyone to exploit underage
children.

What does Planned Parenthood have to do with any of this?
The answer is sobering, and I will divide it into two separate points below. In
short, I want to show how Planned Parenthood is habitually guilty of aiding and
abetting the sexual abuse of minors.

1. STATUTORY RAPE
(NON-CONSENSUAL)

The website Child Predators has documented over 50 cases in 22 states in which an underage
girl was sexually assaulted, taken to a Planned Parenthood (or PP-affiliated)
center for an abortion by the perpetrator, and was not reported to authorities.
If you do a little online research, you can find news articles confirming the
details of these cases. Dates range from 1980 to 2012; about half took place
after 2000.Why is this such a big deal? Because it is illegal in all 50
states for an adult to engage in sexual activity with a minor. Furthermore,
healthcare workers are required by law to report each incident of even alleged
sexual assault.Consider the facts of just one case from 2012. Timothy Smith took his stepdaughter, whom he had been
sexually assaulting for years, to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Denver to get
an abortion. The employees at PP learned that she was only thirteen, and
noticed that, even though Timothy claimed to be her father, they both had
different last names, and she referred to him as “Tim” instead of “Dad.” She
received the abortion, as well as an injectable birth control shot—something to
which she objected, but her stepfather overruled.

During all of this, the clinic workers at Planned Parenthood
committed several acts of criminal negligence, including

A failure to verify any of the information the stepfather
gave them regarding the pregnancy, even though it was suspicious

A failure to confirm consent from a birth parent before
performing an abortion on a minor

As a result, Timothy was enabled to continue raping his
stepdaughter for two more months before finally being caught by the girl’s
birth mother. Later that year, he plead guilty to two counts of sexual abuse.

In all of this, keep in mind that a majority of sexual
assaults are never reported. So, statistically speaking, the findings above represent
just a fraction of the cases in which Planned Parenthood and its affiliates have
turned a blind eye to the sexual abuse of minors.

2. STATUTORY RAPE (CONSENSUAL)

In 2002, an investigative group conducted a phone survey in
which they called over 800 Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation
centers throughout the country. In each case, the caller pretended to be a
13-year-old girl who was pregnant by her 22-year-old boyfriend. The purpose was
to see how clinic representatives would respond to a presented case of
statutory rape in which the girl was trying to keep her pregnancy secret. Here’s
just a snippet from their findings:

[Planned Parenthood and NAF employees]
were willing – and in many cases eager – to help this child hide from her
parents and the authorities the fact that she was being sexually exploited.
Toward that end they provide step-by-step instructions on how to circumvent state
laws that were enacted specifically for the purpose of protecting children
exactly like her in situations just like this. . . .

From start to finish, the attributes of
the employees we talked to made it brutally obvious that this is an issue they
deal with routinely. In fact, several of them volunteered that they get calls
like this all the time.

You don’t have to take my word for it. You can listen to
each and every phone call (if you really want to) here.ALL SYSTEMS KNOW

As a pro-choice reader, you may
have a hard time swallowing information given to you by pro-life sources. You’re
afraid of confirmation bias, right? I can understand that.

Note, however, that the statistics
and articles and media I’ve referenced or linked to aren’t mere hearsay. They
are verifiable incidents, backed up by news reports and court records. As such,
these facts are inherently damning no matter one’s political or ideological
persuasion.

The Timothy Smith case is a
good example of how Planned Parenthood has failed to implement any adequate
reforms. After Smith was convicted in late 2012, a civil suit against PP confirmed
that the organization still has a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Court documents show that current PP training materials state, “PPRM policy is to
not ask partner’s age” (listed under a section entitled, “Partner Looks A Lot
Older”).

Or consider this example from 2014, in which an Arizona Planned Parenthood counselor
intentionally miscoded a case of sexual assault as a consensual encounter. Or
consider this 2014 report by the Alabama Department of Public Health, detailing how a
Planned Parenthood facility “failed to report reasonable suspected abuse or
neglect for a minor,” even though the child had been brought in for two
abortions in the span of several months.

It would be one thing if we were
talking about a few isolated events. Instead, we’re dealing with literally
hundreds of incidents all across the nation, spanning over three decades. These
problems are systemic. As a whole, Planned Parenthood has repeatedly shown its
willingness to circumvent the law, to the possible—if not certain—detriment of
its patients.

PRO-LIFERS AND PRO-CHOICERS UNITE

Over the years, I have witnessed the exposure of certain religious leaders involved in the
sexual abuse of minors. These stories have saddened and sickened those inside
and outside the community of faith. And rightly so. The abuse of power on
display is worthy of opposition and even prosecution.

The same goes for PP’s actions
detailed above. It won’t work to argue, as many have, that “Planned Parenthood
still does a lot of good.” This excuse is inadequate at best and
sleight-of-hand at worst. A foster parent who has molested only one of his
children is unfit to parent; a politician who has covered up a felony so as not
to hurt his campaign is unfit for office; a charity that hides the misdeeds of
its leadership in order to save face is not a trustworthy ministry; and an
organization with a penchant for putting its clients at risk of physical and
emotional harm is not fit to keep its doors open.

The evidence is mounting, causing increasing
public concern, even among the media. That’s why pro-choice advocate Bunnie Riedel finds it “disturbing” that PP has spent so much time circling the
wagons rather than addressing the legitimate criticisms leveled against it. That’s
why Vox editor Sarah Kliff similarly finds it “disturbing” and “damaging” that some Planned Parenthood
officials dismiss their ethics fudging as a “specious issue.” That’s why
pro-choice proponent Ruben Navarrette Jr. has solemnly agreed with the assessment that “Planned Parenthood’s system-wide
conspiracy to evade the law…is now undeniable.”

So would you please join me in advocating
for the elimination of Planned Parenthood? Our government, and society as a
whole, must not stand idly by. To ignore the plight of the vulnerable among us
is irresponsible and just plain crazy. I don’t say that because I’m pro-life
and you’re pro-choice. I say that because we are all human, and we can—and
should—unite in protecting the dignity, innocence, and humanity of those we all
inherently agree are worth protecting: our already-born children.

Friday, July 03, 2015

For those lamenting Pixar’s artistic decline, take heart:
there is reason to celebrate. I’m even prepared to say Inside Out is Pixar’s best film yet. Granted, that’s just my
opinion—but it’s true.

I’m thrilled about the movie’s opening weekend gross of $91
million—the best opening, actually, for an original story in cinema history,
beating out James Cameron’s Avatar.
To quote Entertainment Weekly, “Even
though Inside Out ended the weekend in second place [behind Jurassic World], it’s the biggest
No. 2 debut of all time, demolishing the $68.7 million record previously
held by The Day After Tomorrow.” Yes, this movie is receiving the
financial and critical
accolades it so rightly deserves.

Oh, Pixar, how do I love thee? Let me recount the ways.

As a reminder, I rate movies based on three criteria: potentially objectionable content (C),
artistic merit (A), and my personal opinions (P). (CAP. Get it?)

CONTENT (C): 10 out of 10

A typical Pixar film avoids trite platitudes and sophomoric
humor. Instead, it takes the road
less traveled, delving into realms disregarded by your average children’s
movie. Inside Out is no exception.
The drama of this story unfolds in a way that rings much more true to human
experience than any other “family film” that’s come along in quite a while.

This is Pixar at its poignant best. It doesn’t shy away from
some fairly weighty subjects, but not without a strong sense of felix culpa (i.e., an
error or disaster that eventually leads to pleasant consequences), as well as a
discerning perspective on pain and sadness.

As far as potentially problematic content goes, my main beef
is with a brief (and ostensibly positive) reference to a girl’s fascination
with vampire stories. That’s pretty much it. The film’s content may be too
heavy for some young viewers, but morally inappropriate it is not.

ARTISTRY (A): 10 out of 10

If you evaluated the story based only on the external
events—i.e., what takes place in the “real world”—you’d notice it’s about as
simple and generic a story as you can get. What makes it incredibly novel is
the focused attention on the inside of a young girl’s mind, personifying her
emotions as individual characters. This perspective turns the story into a gold
mine of originality. Inside Out is
another shining example of Pixar’s out-of-the-box storytelling, right up there
with the likes of WALL•E and Up.

Pete Docter and his team of filmmakers strike all the right
keys, including everything from Michael Giacchino’s score to the storytellers’
intricate world-building. The script’s ability to deal with such complexity in
such an easy-to-follow way is commendable.

The cheap and easy way to play the emotions for humor would
have been to make them all self-serving and antagonistic toward each other.
Instead, they work together as a team. Sure, there are moments of disagreement,
but the relational dynamics between the emotions makes us sympathize with each
character. In fact, all the major characters, both within and outside Riley’s
mind, are relatable/likeable.

The film actually has no anthropomorphic antagonist, but it
still grapples with sad and somber subjects, not the least of which involves
irreparable loss. If you’ve ever wondered by humans have heartstrings, it’s so
that movies like this could tug at them. The art of filmmaking exists so
stories like this can be told.

No film is absolutely perfect, but Inside Out is about as close as they come. In a perfect world, this
movie would receive an Oscar nomination for Best Picture. Alas, we don’t live
in a perfect world.

PREFERENCE (P): 9 out of 10

One of my major concerns going into the film was that humans
would be turned into mere puppets at the service of the emotions controlling
them. What I found was a more nuanced portrayal: at times, the emotions do seem
to be calling the shots, whereas other instances point to the humans directing
the emotions. It’s a clever and balanced portrayal of the paradoxical truths of
predestination and human autonomy.

I freely admit that I cry in movies—especially
Pixar films. Inside Out, however,
reached deeper into my soul than any other Pixar film to date—possibly deeper
than any other film period. My wife thinks it’s because this story is the most
universally appealing and applicable that Pixar has ever created. Finding Nemo might resonate more with
parents, and Up might resonate more
with married couples, but no one is left out of Inside Out’s sights. Pete Docter has tapped into the universal
human experience in a way no other Pixar film has done. It left Shannon and me
emotionally undone.

There were several points in the film where even Shannon
(who never cries in movies—and I mean never)
was reduced to a bucket of tears. And during the clever and cathartic end
credits, I was literally laughing and crying at the same time. As Shannon
and I discussed the story afterward, neither of us could mention certain plot
points without having to stop and compose ourselves. Yes, the movie is that
affecting.

Furthermore, the movie’s thematic elements are complementary
to a Tim Keller book Shannon and I are currently reading: Walking with God through Pain and Suffering. One aspect of the
Christian view of pain is that it has a “soul making” affect, giving us greater
capacities to experience and demonstrate emotions and virtues that would
otherwise be impossible. Inside Out
beautifully mirrors this truth—not in a preachy way, but in a subtle and
organic way. In fact, this movie’s illustration of the “soul making” nature of
suffering has directly affected my parenting; it has helped assuage certain
fears I’ve had regarding my eldest daughter. It’s not often I can say something
like that about a children’s film, or any
film.

With all this raving, why am I not giving the movie a 10 for
my personal opinion? Well, I wasn’t absolutely captivated by the film until the
third act. I was interested from the get-go, but it didn’t fully hook and amaze
me until the story rushed toward its climax. (In contrast, I gave Monster’s University a perfect score because it was a constant delight for me all
the way through.) And while Giacchino’s music fits the film well, it’s my least
favorite score of his for a Pixar film. (Up
and Ratatouille are much more
memorable.) At the same time, I can’t complain too much; each successive listen
to the score has left me sobbing. Obviously, it does the job well.
Nevertheless, my enjoyment of Inside Out
is slightly below my appreciation for it. That’s the only reason why I’m not
giving the movie an overall perfect score.

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

There are a couple things you may not know. First, this is
Hip Hop Appreciation Week. Yes, it’s an actual thing. And second, hip hop is my
second favorite genre of music. It may be hard to believe, but it’s true.
Second only to my love of instrumental motion picture scores is my love of rap.

In fact, I’ve played around with the possibility of writing
and recording some of my own rap music. If I did, you could then call me by my hip
hop name: Skittles. (M&M is already taken…sort of.)

Rap songs have the unique ability to contain boatloads of
information, which, depending on how the format is utilized, can lend itself
well to either serious and weighty meditation or outlandish humor. I love both
uses. So, in honor of Hip Hop Appreciation Week, I wanted to share some of my
favorite rap songs/videos with you. I don’t necessarily think these are the
cream of the crop from an aesthetic standpoint—only that I myself enjoy them
immensely. I’ve divided my list into two groups: humorous rap songs and serious
rap songs. We’ll start with the humorous ones first.

Top 5 Humorous Rap
Songs

5. “Yo Mama Battle (of Compliments)” (Rhett & Link)

It’s hard to pick a favorite of Rhett and Link’s hip hop
songs, but I like this one because of the twist on a rap battle (i.e.,
compliments instead of insults) and the cleverness of the lyrics. (My wife
likes the “Epic Rap Battle of Manliness” better.)

4. “White and Nerdy” (Weird Al)

Weird Al’s parody skills are exceptional, and this hip hop
song is…well, no exception.

3. “Tears of a Rapper” (Flight of the Conchords)

This song comes from the Fight of the Conchords TV show. The
lyrics this dynamic duo comes up with are often hilarious. Unfortunately, the
song cannot be imbedded, so here is the link.
(Warning: song contains some language.)

2. “See You on Monday” (Roman
Johnson)

Slathered with delicious lyrics, this song about a man pining
for Chick-fil-A on a Sunday (when the restaurant chain is closed) is a real treat.

1. “Swagger Wagon” (Toyota)

Created by Toyota (yep, the car company), this is a clever
and slick piece of marketing. As a standalone song (and music video), it’s an intense
and entertaining laugh-fest.

Top 5 Serious Rap
Songs

5. “Can I Live?” (Nick Cannon)

This song wears its message on its sleeve, but I still
love it for two reasons: 1) it’s a message I’m passionate about, and 2) the
“twist” ending gives the piece a nice rhetorical boost.

4. “Atonement Q&A” (Shai Linne)

This is a theologian’s dream: a hip hop catechism. Through
a series of questions and answers, Shai Linne explains the nature, extent, and
beauty of Christ’s atonement.

3. “The Interview” (Timothy Brindle)

Although this could technically fit in the humorous
category, it still deals with a serious topic: finding and rooting out the sin
in one’s life. Arranged in the form of an interview, and filled with clever
lyrics/banter, this song expertly sets up the rest of Brindle’s Killing Sin album. (Yes, I know the
album’s artwork leaves much to be desired; just focus on the words of the
song.)

2. “Far Away” (Lecrae)

Written as a source of encouragement to those experiencing
suffering, Lecrae dedicated all royalties to this song toward relief work in
Haiti after a 2010 earthquake killed hundreds of thousands of people.

1. “Rebel” (Lecrae)

Lecrae is my favorite rapper, so it’s hard to pick my top selection
from him. At long last, I decided on this one simply because I listen to it
more than just about any of his other songs. (This music video is not
officially from Lecrae, but I found it more visually interesting than those
with just words on the screen.)

Follow by Email

About the Blogger

I work to provide identity theft protection and preventative legal services to individuals, businesses, and employees. I’m also a freelance writer and copy editor. My most important roles include being the husband of an amazing wife who still doesn’t realize she deserves far better, the father of two wonderful girls whom I don’t deserve, and the owner of a cat who thinks she deserves to eat our houseplants. You can follow me on Twitter: @capstewart.